K L BHATIA Vs. GURMIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I shall be disposing of IA No.7668 of 1989 and IA No.6621 of 1990. IA No. 7668 of 1989 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX rules I and 2 CPC, seeking a restraint on the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of property No. K-79B, Kalkaji, New Delhi. IA 6621 of 1990, is the application moved by defendant No.l for vacation of interim orders dated 3-10-1989 and 3-7-1990 by which the defendants were restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit property.

(2.) The defendant No.l in the written statement filed has contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against him. The defendant No.l admittedly did not enter into any contract with the plaintiff. It is further claimed that there was no concluded contract even with the defendant No.2 father of defendant No.l, to whom also a token advance subject to direct negotiation with defendant No.l had been given, which ultimately also did not materialize. The defendant No.l claims to have sold the property in question to defendant No.3 and delivered possession of the same on 2-5-1989 to the said defendant.

(3.) The defendant No.2 in the written statement filed has contended that he was neither the owner of the property nor had entered into any agreement to sell with plaintiff. The defendant No.2 claims that in July 1988, when he happened to be in Delhi, he was approached by the plaintiff for the sale of the property. The plaintiff it is submitted insisted on Rs.20,000.00 being paid as token advance, pending his direct negotiations with defendant No.l who was the owner of the property. The plaintiff had brought a typed receipt and the defendant in good faith signed the same on receiving Rs.20,000.00 which had been given. Since the negotiations were to be conducted and terms for sale were yet to be agreed, the defendant No.2 did not attach any importance to the words in the receipt, wherein defendant No.2 was mentioned as the owner. The plaintiff insisted and obtained copies of the documents of the property for verification. It is stated that the answering defendant requested the plaintiff to negotiate and settle the matter with the defendant no.l but he did not do so and the defendant No.2 even visited the plaintiff for returning the token advance. The plaintiff had lease hold property from L.& D.O. and therefore he was not interested in negotiating and completing the settlement with. defendant No.l. It is stated that the defendant never represented himself to be the owner and the plaintiff was exploiting and taking advantage of the receipt that he had got signed from the defendant No.2 in good faith. The defendant No.2 having no right, title or interest in the property could not sell the same and there was no concluded and enforceable agreement in respect of the same. Additionally it was pleaded that the plaintiff had forged the receipt by adding the words "the deal is settled at Rs-13.25 lacs" as well as the name and address of the witness.